Re: IETF 54 calendar
On Tue, 28 May 2002, Melinda Shore wrote: At 02:58 PM 5/28/02 -0500, Pete Resnick wrote: Again, I'm not going to object to using meeting time for this kind of session if that's what's needed. But other than Harald's message, I have not heard anything about this since Minneapolis and have not heard folks clamoring for such a meeting. Heck, we haven't seen a proposed agenda for a meeting let alone an I-D. How was it decided that everyone would obviously want to go and that therefore a separate session was needed? I'd like to see a session on IPR that doesn't conflict with other meetings. It would be endlessly great if it could be declared mandatory :-). IPR is increasingly a huge nuisance, and because the current policy is less than completely clear there's a lot of confusion about it when it comes up. Although this may not be a problem (until the lawyers show up) there's not a lot of consistency among working groups. I think that would be very useful if a couple of lawyers showed up in an IPR session, listened to the comments and warned us for things that are illegal or not legally implementable. Henk -- Henk UijterwaalEmail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB AmsterdamFax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 -- That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)
Re: IETF 54 calendar
--On 28. mai 2002 14:58 -0500 Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Again, I'm not going to object to using meeting time for this kind of session if that's what's needed. But other than Harald's message, I have not heard anything about this since Minneapolis and have not heard folks clamoring for such a meeting. Heck, we haven't seen a proposed agenda for a meeting let alone an I-D. How was it decided that everyone would obviously want to go and that therefore a separate session was needed? basically decided (proposed) by me after listening to the feedback from the plenary in Minneapolis, and a number of private discussions. Not that *everyone* would want to go, but that the set of people who would want to go would be basically unknown, and not aligned along the usual lines, but SHOULD include a large percentage of the IETF leadership. (It also allows the people who do NOT want to participate a chance to leave...) And yes, we have explicitly invited Jorge Contreras, the IETF lawyer. We have used more time than I would like in getting this effort off the ground (this is not uncommon). We are hoping to announce the mailing list Real Soon Now. Harald
Re: IETF 54 calendar
Melinda Shore wrote: ... IPR is increasingly a huge nuisance, and because the current policy is less than completely clear there's a lot of confusion about it when it comes up. I think it's pretty clear. That doesn't mean it doesn't cause confusion, because it certainly does. There is a strong case for an informational document and presentation to try to get rid of the confusion, but that doesn't need a meeting or a WG. Brian
Re: IETF 54 calendar
At 11:03 AM 5/29/02 +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: I think it's pretty clear. That doesn't mean it doesn't cause confusion, because it certainly does. There is a strong case for an informational document and presentation to try to get rid of the confusion, but that doesn't need a meeting or a WG. I really think that it depends on your definition of pretty clear. Aside from situations in which some competing technologies are encumbered and some are not, we're now finding ourselves in situations where all of the proposed technologies are encumbered but have different licensing terms. I think that a new informational document would benefit a great deal from real-time discussion, etc., if for no other reason to see which questions are raised. A Friday meeting seems to me to be a rather small one-time cost for getting more clarity around the issue. Melinda
Re: IETF 54 calendar
On Wed, May 29, 2002 09:36:44AM -0400, Melinda Shore wrote: Aside from situations in which some competing technologies are encumbered and some are not, we're now finding ourselves in situations where all of the proposed technologies are encumbered but have different licensing terms. I think that a new informational document would benefit a great deal from real-time discussion, etc., if for no other reason to see which questions are raised. A Friday meeting seems to me to be a rather small one-time cost for getting more clarity around the issue. Exactly. And the problem with trying to work this particular, large, issue in a small group or by mail is that the strong opinions don't get vented and worked out. I look forward to a special plenary. ..Scott
Re: IPR Re: IETF 54 calendar (fwd)
If what you are asking for is that for every proposal / i-d that shows up in the IETF, the IPR holder is automatically required to provide an RF license, you really don't understand the reason people bother with patents to begin with. doesn't follow. it's entirely possible to understand why people bother with patents and still believe that IETF shouldn't support their use to prevent free implementation of a standard. Keith
Re: IPR Re: IETF 54 calendar (fwd)
As I recall, RAND was explicitly selected over RF because there are and will be technologies that are interesting to incorporate in a system-wide standard approach, and forcing RF terms would automatically exclude those. There is enough of a bias in the participants toward RF when available, that explicit language requiring it adds no value and in some cases actually subtracts value from the process of achieving consensus. If what you are asking for is that for every proposal / i-d that shows up in the IETF, the IPR holder is automatically required to provide an RF license, you really don't understand the reason people bother with patents to begin with. tony - i don't find your last paragraph to be particularly helpful. a reasoned argument can be made that patents and community standards are incompatible. a rigorous study of the US patent system indicates that the founders introduced the system in order to serve the public good, by encouraging innovation, by granting limited monopolies on inventions. it is unclear if that system is particularly compatible with community-based approaches such as the IETF where, by definition, the output is not monopolized. with respect to your first paragraph, i note that if technology companies see value in participating in the standards process, then perhaps it is not unreasonable to suggest that the IETF consider only RF stuff, and then let the various IPR stakeholders decide whether the trade-off is worth it... in other words, if someone has some whizbang technology, and if they want the imprimatur of a community such as the IETF, then they can decide for themselves whether to RF it. if not, they are perfectly free to pursue a proprietary market strategy. for myself, i take no position on the merits of the two kinds of licensing; rather, i merely note that the issue is somewhat more subtle than first glance. /mtr
RE: IPR Re: IETF 54 calendar (fwd)
Marshall Rose wrote: As I recall, RAND was explicitly selected over RF because there are and will be technologies that are interesting to incorporate in a system-wide standard approach, and forcing RF terms would automatically exclude those. There is enough of a bias in the participants toward RF when available, that explicit language requiring it adds no value and in some cases actually subtracts value from the process of achieving consensus. If what you are asking for is that for every proposal / i-d that shows up in the IETF, the IPR holder is automatically required to provide an RF license, you really don't understand the reason people bother with patents to begin with. tony - i don't find your last paragraph to be particularly helpful. a reasoned argument can be made that patents and community standards are incompatible. a rigorous study of the US patent system indicates that the founders introduced the system in order to serve the public good, by encouraging innovation, by granting limited monopolies on inventions. it is unclear if that system is particularly compatible with community-based approaches such as the IETF where, by definition, the output is not monopolized. Clearly from the responses I didn't make my point in that last paragraph. The original note mentioned VRRP specifically, and in that case the IPR holder didn't bring the proposal to the IETF. The way I read that note, the Free Software community believes that the IPR holder should be required to provide RF terms when someone proposes a similar technology for standardization. with respect to your first paragraph, i note that if technology companies see value in participating in the standards process, then perhaps it is not unreasonable to suggest that the IETF consider only RF stuff, and then let the various IPR stakeholders decide whether the trade-off is worth it... in other words, if someone has some whizbang technology, and if they want the imprimatur of a community such as the IETF, then they can decide for themselves whether to RF it. if not, they are perfectly free to pursue a proprietary market strategy. In general I agree for the case where the IPR holder brings the technology for standardization. In the case where a proposal shows up which the group thinks is technically the right direction, but a 3rd party holds IPR, we can't require RF, but can require the WG demonstrate that RAND is functional. for myself, i take no position on the merits of the two kinds of licensing; rather, i merely note that the issue is somewhat more subtle than first glance. Subtle enough that a quick paragraph is easily misread. :) Tony
Re: IPR Re: IETF 54 calendar (fwd)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Keith Moore writes: If what you are asking for is that for every proposal / i-d that shows up in the IETF, the IPR holder is automatically required to provide an RF license, you really don't understand the reason people bother with patents to begin with. doesn't follow. it's entirely possible to understand why people bother with patents and still believe that IETF shouldn't support their use to prevent free implementation of a standard. There's an interesting dilemma here. I know of one case where some IETFers tried *hard* -- and persuaded their employers -- that an algorithm they invented should be patent-free. But someone else asserted that his patent *might* cover their invention -- and, since their employers wouldn't profit from a patent-free protocol, they wouldn't stand behind it if it went to court, or even to lawyers at 20 paces. That is: no patent and no profit = no strong backing. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (Firewalls book)
Re: IPR Re: IETF 54 calendar (fwd)
doesn't follow. it's entirely possible to understand why people bother with patents and still believe that IETF shouldn't support their use to prevent free implementation of a standard. There's an interesting dilemma here. I know of one case where some IETFers tried *hard* -- and persuaded their employers -- that an algorithm they invented should be patent-free. But someone else asserted that his patent *might* cover their invention -- and, since their employers wouldn't profit from a patent-free protocol, they wouldn't stand behind it if it went to court, or even to lawyers at 20 paces. That is: no patent and no profit = no strong backing. one of the major problems with the patent system is that it all but forces competition even when it's not desirable. which is why I don't blame companies (or individuals!) for patenting things and licensing them on a don't sue us, we won't sue you basis. (which seems to me to be entirely compatible with RF) Keith
Re: IPR Re: IETF 54 calendar (fwd)
On Wed, 29 May 2002 15:40:55 PDT, Tony Hain said: Clearly from the responses I didn't make my point in that last paragraph. The original note mentioned VRRP specifically, and in that case the IPR holder didn't bring the proposal to the IETF. The way I read that note, the Free Software community believes that the IPR holder should be required to provide RF terms when someone proposes a similar technology for standardization. Be very careful here - asserting that there is one the Free Software community that agrees on ANYTHING is hazardous. Fortunately for our collective sanity, most of the community seems to be in either the GPL camp or the BSD/X11 camp, and both of those groups would agree on royalty-free as a requirement. I have to agree with the RF requirement on more pragmatic grounds - if we want to move something along the Standard track, we're saying This is the way it should be done. And the reality is that a monoculture is a Very Bad Thing for all the usual diversity reasons. However, this implies that there will be platforms with marginal support, where most of what's being done is for free by hobbyists and owners/users (see the Linux world several years ago for an example). Letting something onto the Standards track without a RF clause is basically saying Your checkbook must be at least license fee tall to ride this function of the Internet. And we don't want to do that. Does anybody know if it's possible to write a license for basic technology (the algorithms themselves, not a particular source implementation) such that code written to implement it can be released under the BSD or GPL licenses, as the implementor sees fit? Do we, as the IETF, want to say must be *either* BSD-ish or GPL-ish licensed, or do we want to say must be compatible with both styles, or do we want to do a semantic tap-dance and use verbiage that doesn't actually *reference* either by name, but is acceptable to either/both camps? I know that the GNU people are more than happy to discuss in great detail exactly how a specific license is or isn't compatible with their agenda and license, and I'm sure a spokesperson can be found for the BSD-style camp as well... (And as usual, IANAL, I just happen to have opinions on what I perceive as a desirable goal) -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech msg08409/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: IETF 54 calendar
-- dimanche, mai 26, 2002 20:04:30 +0200 Harald Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote/a écrit: conflict with just about EVERY working group: The meeting that will talk about the IETF procedures for intellectual property rights, including copyright issues and - most ominously - patent issues. This was mentioned ... So this means that people who have IPR issues they want to bring to the table had better be prepared to stay Friday; most others can leave if they want to. What do people think? - important topic to be discussed - to me, this topic could need external advisors available during the meeting to make progress and understand the issues. engineers are not good IPR attorneys... - left to the secretariat the choice of scheduling. friday seems a good choice. Marc. Harald --On fredag, mai 24, 2002 17:13:14 +0200 Cedric Aoun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I don't know if people have already asked this question, I apologize if this was discussed before. Are we going to finish the WGs sessions on Thursday in Yokohama, same as in Minneapolis? Most flights to Europe are around noon, in case meetings are scheduled on Friday people in Europe will need to schedule their flight on Saturday. Thanks Cedric -- Marc Blanchet Viagénie tel: +1-418-656-9254x225 -- http://www.freenet6.net: IPv6 connectivity -- http://www.normos.org: IETF(RFC,draft), IANA,W3C,... standards. --
Re: IETF 54 calendar
--On Sunday, May 26, 2002 3:32 PM -0500 Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems to me that exactly the same thing can be said about POISSON and it gets along just fine conflicting with other meetings. Actually, Pete, POISSON didn't have a face to face meeting for years, and the conflicts with other meetings are a large part of the reason. The people who will go to an IPR meeting instead of going to another one are those folks who want to contribute to setting IETF IPR policy. I think putting it on a day with no other meetings *invites* people who may or may not care very much, but are willing to rant on given the invitation. But it also excludes conflicting WG Chairs and editors, along with most of the IESG and at least part of the IAB. It is valuable, I believe, to have those we charge with implementing and interpreting policies present and participating when they are shaped. Furthermore, decisions of the IETF do not take place at face-to-face meetings and it better not be *required* to attend this meeting if you want to have input on IETF IPR policy. But Dave's comment is important here, I think: if we can get the right people to this meeting, it may have some educational value for those who want to contribute to IPR policy as amateur lawyers. Uneducated decisions (or even positions and drafts) that are made largely by those people can, at best, waste huge amounts of time and energy. john
Re: IETF 54 calendar
- We now have 2 ADs per area. It would certainly be possible to schedule this in such a way that at least one of them can attend, even if it did overlap with other groups. that's a stretch. there are often 2 simultaneous WG meetings in a given area, and there are often meetings in other areas worthy of an AD's attention. basically AD attention is a scarce resource. in general - there is (and should be) an attempt to schedule meetings in such a way as to minimize scheduling conflicts. putting meetings of general interest in time slots with little competition seems like a good way to do this. Keith
Re: IETF 54 calendar
At 07:43 PM 5/28/2002 -0400, Keith Moore wrote: putting meetings of general interest in time slots with little competition seems like a good way to do this. That is called a plenary. d/ -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TribalWise, Inc. http://www.tribalwise.com tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850
Re: IETF 54 calendar
That is called a plenary. so call it a plenary, then. Keith
Re: IETF 54 calendar
there's a reason POISSON has lately avoided having physical meetings unless it absolutely had to --On 28. mai 2002 08:30 -0700 Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:32 PM 5/26/2002 -0500, Pete Resnick wrote: It seems to me that exactly the same thing can be said about POISSON and it gets along just fine conflicting with other meetings. excellent observation.
Re: IETF 54 calendar
Cedric, as Julie said, we are not scheduling things into Friday before the other slots are full. BUT - Yokohama will probably see one meeting that is, by definition, a conflict with just about EVERY working group: The meeting that will talk about the IETF procedures for intellectual property rights, including copyright issues and - most ominously - patent issues. This was mentioned at the IETF plenary in Minneapolis - a team has been working to bring this forward to fruition, but does not have all the work that we want to do before asking you to start hammering it out done yet. This will likely have the properties that: - Lots of people will be interested - No matter what we schedule it against, there will be a conflict - It is likely to be quite a long and heated debate At the moment, the least damaging solution seems to be to schedule this group in the largest room we can find - and in the Friday timeslot. So this means that people who have IPR issues they want to bring to the table had better be prepared to stay Friday; most others can leave if they want to. What do people think? Harald --On fredag, mai 24, 2002 17:13:14 +0200 Cedric Aoun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I don't know if people have already asked this question, I apologize if this was discussed before. Are we going to finish the WGs sessions on Thursday in Yokohama, same as in Minneapolis? Most flights to Europe are around noon, in case meetings are scheduled on Friday people in Europe will need to schedule their flight on Saturday. Thanks Cedric
Re: IETF 54 calendar
On 5/26/02 at 8:04 PM +0200, Harald Alvestrand wrote: Yokohama will probably see one meeting that is, by definition, a conflict with just about EVERY working group: The meeting that will talk about the IETF procedures for intellectual property rights, including copyright issues and - most ominously - patent issues. [...] So this means that people who have IPR issues they want to bring to the table had better be prepared to stay Friday; most others can leave if they want to. What do people think? It seems to me that exactly the same thing can be said about POISSON and it gets along just fine conflicting with other meetings. The people who will go to an IPR meeting instead of going to another one are those folks who want to contribute to setting IETF IPR policy. I think putting it on a day with no other meetings *invites* people who may or may not care very much, but are willing to rant on given the invitation. Furthermore, decisions of the IETF do not take place at face-to-face meetings and it better not be *required* to attend this meeting if you want to have input on IETF IPR policy. I have no objection to putting the meeting on Friday; I just don't think it requires a day by itself. pr -- Pete Resnick mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] QUALCOMM Incorporated
Re: IETF 54 calendar fireworks
I suspect if you haven't already arranged to stay for the fireworks, your chances of finding accommodation are vanishingly small. I've certainly just been told all the IETF recommended hotels have no vacancies for beyond Friday night. cheers -George -- George Michaelson | APNIC Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| PO Box 2131 Milton QLD 4064 Phone: +61 7 3858 3100 | Australia Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 | http://www.apnic.net
Re: IETF 54 calendar
Cedric - We are do not have anything scheduled on Friday at this point and we are trying to keep it clear. We will, of course, use that time if we have to - if there are so many working groups that need to meet, So, in all likelihood, there will not be meetings on Friday. Thanks for your note and see you in Yokohama! Juliek At 05:13 PM 5/24/02 +0200, Cedric Aoun wrote: Hi, I don't know if people have already asked this question, I apologize if this was discussed before. Are we going to finish the WGs sessions on Thursday in Yokohama, same as in Minneapolis? Most flights to Europe are around noon, in case meetings are scheduled on Friday people in Europe will need to schedule their flight on Saturday. Thanks Cedric
